I'm about ready to pull the trigger on the Diva 6.2's but would really like to see some in person. Positive reviews aside it's a big purchase for me and quite a leap of faith without seeing/hearing them. I'm just wondering if there are any around the Atlanta area which someone would be kind enough to let me see. Any from the Diva line would be fine. I know it's asking a lot but I figured I should try at least before making the plunge.

I'm about ready to pull the trigger on the Diva 6.2's but would really like to see some in person. Positive reviews aside it's a big purchase for me and quite a leap of faith without seeing/hearing them. I'm just wondering if there are any around the Atlanta area which someone would be kind enough to let me see. Any from the Diva line would be fine. I know it's asking a lot but I figured I should try at least before making the plunge.

Thanks,

Jeff
Atlanta

Not from Atlanta but thought I'd throw my $0.02 in - I have the Diva 4.2s along with a C3 center and R-3 surrounds. The 4.2's replaced my trusty Paradigm Studio 40 v.3 - a highly regarded speaker in it's own right - and I've been totally pleased with the added bass, overall detail & imaging of the 4.2's. Of course speaker evaluations are perhaps the most subjective of all AV components - but from a performance and appearance (even my wife commented on their attractiveness & that's saying something) perspective, I suspect you'll be quite pleased - the 6.2's pack 8" woofers and certainly surpass my 4.2's in that respect (they share identical mid-range/tweeters). Presumably - you have a return option for shipping costs so - while that can be a hassle - you're protected. Swans are kind of a hidden niche in the speaker world, and certainly within the ID domain - so I understand your concern & reluctance to purchase in an ears unheard scenario - but as most Swan owners will attest - hearing is believing. Good luck & let us know the results!

I have the F2.2F and I use Hypex UCD400HG monos with them, great match. Recently I built Tripath tk2050 300wpc mono amps and they sound just wonderful with the F2.2s too!

I see you went from F2.2 to F1.1. What are the differences sound-wise? Look-wise the 1.1 dwarf the already big 2.2!

I would like to try class D with my Swans. I have never heard class D but I read others, and now you, who like the sound and power it provides. Rotel 1092 have been mentioned.

Swans F1.1 is a little more laidback, the vocals seems to come further back in the soundfield but they still got plenty of details and finesse. The bass is way more powerfull. Obviously they benefit from a larger room. Thats the main differences in my opinion.

What are the fundamental differences between the 6.1 and 6.2 series besides the design and types of drivers? Is one considered more for HT purposes? I am torn between the 6.1 and C3 or 6.2's and the 5.2C center......any advice would be much appreciated.....

EDIT: Finally found what I was looking for here in this post from 2 years ago..it appears the 6.1 is better for HT due to it's lower mid bass performance.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steve Ozmai
mtrot,

Thanks for the question. As you can imagine - this is one we get quite often. First - with respect to the sonic matching - the X.1 and X.2 Diva series have not been timbre matched. Though the voicing is similar, there is not a perfect sonic match between these lines. All timbre matching in the Diva series is done within each product category. In other words - all X.1 series are matched to each other - as are all X.2 series. Thus, when designing a X.1 or X.2 system, you can choose from any range of components within the line...though we do not recommend mixing between the two. In real world testing, the difference between something like the 6.1 and a X.2 series center channel is minimal and, in some cases, inaudible. That said, it is not a perfect match on paper - so our recommendation is to stay within the lines when building your system.

Second - with respect to the 6.1 vs. 6.2 question - this is another VERY common topic. Unfortunately for us...or should I say fortunately for you...Swans really outdid themselves on the 6.1. This is a speaker that almost single handedly redefined the high-end audio industry (as one of the first ID loudspeakers). Some of you might remember our "attention grabbing" unveiling of the Diva 6.1 (and the rest of the Diva line) at CES several years ago. To prove a point, we put this speaker side by side with the B&W Nautlius 802 (an incredible, and ridiculously expensive, loudspeaker) and made a staff of reviewers guess which they were hearing. Let's just say there were more than a few egos shattered over that particular weekend (and some interesting legal developments a few years later from a certain high-end speaker manufacturer).

One of the 6.1's biggest strengths is its ability to remain detailed, articulate, and balanced over a very wide power range. From whispers to wall-shaking explosions, the 6.1 presents a remarkable level of detail without ever overpowering the listener. Many speakers that offer this type of performance will cause fatigue after 20-30 minutes in front of the speaker…the 6.1 is the exact opposite. In fact, we've had several experiences with and feedback from our customers that have no idea how loud the speakers are actually playing until they leave the room…and, in some cases, the house. When they can still hear the output from 60 yards down the street, but don't have listener fatigue while actually in the room, it's always an eye opening experience. This ability is in large part due to drivers used in the 6.1. Dual magnesium alloy bass woofers (8"), Kevlar midrange (6"), and silk dome tweeter. These components are able to accommodate a very wide power band without a significant shift in frequency response (thus you won't lose bass response at low volume or detail at high volume).

Where the 6.1 is a heavyweight knock-your-socks-off beast, the 6.2 is a much more refined and controlled monster (by no means a small speaker). The 6.2 is the evolution of the Diva category designed to offer reference level performance in any format (from high-rez music to Pro Logic DVD's). While the X.2 series shares the Diva name, it's really a new category all together. The X.2 line shares many of the driver configurations seen in the X.1 line, but that's really where the similarities end. The differences start with a beautifully redesigned bentwood cabinet…which really has to be seen to appreciate. Building on the X.1 technology, the cabinet in the X.2 line is designed to eliminate any and all parallel surfaces - thus reducing standing waves inside the cabinet and improving the overall accuracy, time alignment, and soundstage of the speaker. All drivers utilize new long-throw linear suspensions with polypropylene cones. Though not quite as rigid as the metal cones used in the X.1 series, the X.2 drivers offer a more refined and detailed response with significantly improved off-axis response. Last, but definitely not least, all X.2 loudspeakers use truly state-of-the-art crossovers (Swans doesn't believe in charging more to build crossovers right the first time). The X.2 crossovers utilize the best components available in the Swans inventory - and are voiced specifically with the X.2 series drivers to maximize off-axis response and deliver unprecedented 2-channel imaging. For all of these reasons, many of our customers find that the X.2 series offers a bit better overall performance for most music formats. Because most home theater formats don't heavily rely on imaging to recreate the desired effect (since there's a speaker where an image would be created in a 2 channel system), the 6.1's additional lower mid-bass punch and visceral effect (you FEEL the 6.1) make it the speaker of choice for HT. In most cases, I recommend the 6.1 for a 30/70 music/HT system and the 6.2 in a 70/30 music/HT system.

We developed the Diva series just for ID sales - tons of acoustical horsepower, and high value - which have succeeded for going into Diva's twelveth year. At some point in Diva's trajectory a line of export-market Divas were developed using only ultra-premium finishes.

These finishes tend to go into Europe and as has been alluded in this thread, cost a ton. The only difference is finish and it completely changes the pricing.

TAI can access all Swan models, should the price and terms not deter a user. Thanks to sac8d4 for the accurate perspective.

I am getting a pair of 6.1's and the C3 center. The 6.1's will need to be placed right against the side walls in order to fit next to my screen. I am talking maybe a 1/2" away from the side walls in order to allow the screen to come down. So, in your opinion, is treating the side wall for reflections a must with the design of the tweeters on the 6.1's? If so, I'll have to talk with my wife then.....

Your setup sounds like it may have its space limitations with your front speakers being placed so close to the sidewalls, however you have a few methods to consider; absorbtion or diffusion. It ultimately depends on what you are trying to acomplish whether absorbing certain frequencies or reducing the sense of localization and correction with time domain. I will soon be toying with this myself.... I currently have GIK 242 acoustic panels (absorption) behind my Swans. I am also considering 2x4 diffusor panels. But I might switch the location of the absorption and diffusion panels. At this point, it will be a matter of taking in room measurements and trial and error.

I am getting a pair of 6.1's and the C3 center. The 6.1's will need to be placed right against the side walls in order to fit next to my screen. I am talking maybe a 1/2" away from the side walls in order to allow the screen to come down. So, in your opinion, is treating the side wall for reflections a must with the design of the tweeters on the 6.1's? If so, I'll have to talk with my wife then.....

John time to get a bigger house. Just kidding, good luck with your swans.

John time to get a bigger house. Just kidding, good luck with your swans.

Actually, it is time to take back the other 1/2 of my basement from my kids (it is a rectangular shape and totally open, as the back 1/2 is my kids play area), then I would have a space of 11X40, instead of 11X18.

that wouldn't make any difference in the front speakers space limitations.
11' is 11'. perhaps you can move a wall over a few feet ?

yes, you would need some kind of absorbtion . the 6.1's have a pretty wide stage. toeing in would help a lot.

No chance of the wall moving, it is cement behind both sides since this is a basement set-up. Working on the side walls is my only option, and I have a plan up my sleeve that will make my wife happy and myself included.

I'd like to do a toe in, but based on simple math of the width of my basement versus the width of the 6.1's and the screen when it is pulled down, that would leave me with about 1/2" on both sides, so not likely any kind of toe in will help. We all have to work with the limitations of our own rooms, and I have been doing so for a few years now, so I'll just continue to do the best I can.

Does anyone have any experience with the Swan M-20W system? I can't seem to find much information on it and I was wondering if they're worth the upgrade from the M10's. Any help would be greatly appreciated!

how do the Swans do at low-ish listening volumes? particularly the D1080MkII08. (MUSIC: ambient/minimal/dubstep [James Blake], classical music, lo-fi pop [the Radio Dept], and a lot of for-lack-of-better-classification 'indie rock']

I'd be using them when I'm studying or reading and can't rock out on my RS-1s. not sure if I should spend the extra $100 and buy the Swans instead the Harman Kardon Soundsticks for my purposes (i like the Harman Kardons have a sub because I imagined speakers generally fall flatter at low volumes - though i could be wrong...)

not sure if I want to spend the extra money as nothing I buy speakers-wise will beat my RS-1s anyway. (my room is 9x11)

Recently I had the pleasure of spending some time with the Swans 2.5 and 6005 speakers at Cleveland Plasma.

The 2.5 is a visually imposing but beautiful speaker, with a side firing 15" subwoofer at the base along with four 6" midbass drivers, 16 1.25" dome tweeters, and 16 1x2" planar supertweeters in vertical arrays on the front (driver size is nominal as measured by me; as expected, actual radiating surface of the sub and midbass speakers is smaller). The tweeter and supertweeter line array is 4' 3" long, with the top drivers being about 57.5" high.
They are rated at 88dB sensitivity at 2.83V/1M and 10-500 watt power handling at the nominal 8 ohm impedance. There are 3 sets of heavy duty binding posts for tri wiring or passive tri amping. Care should be taken that all 3 sets of posts are very firmly tightened down; otherwise contact between them can be broken when single wiring, leading to very poor sound.

Due to the size of the speakers and the listening room, there was very little room for experimentation with placement. I have a feeling that will be the case in many setups. The room was not exactly small; but with the huge size of the speakers, unless the room is quite large, flexibility will be limited.
They were positioned with the bottom back of the base 9" from the back wall, 103" apart, and about 13' to the listening position. The room is fairly live; although carpeted and having a sofa and loveseat, the room has a noticeable ring with the hand clap test. The speakers were powered by the Red Dragon Audio M-1000 monoblocks and Emotiva XPA-1 monoblocks, both fed with the balanced outputs of a new Onkyo flagship processor. No equalization or tonal manipulation was used in the Onkyo. Source components included a Panasonic Blu Ray player using an HDMI connection and a Panasonic DVD player using a coaxial digital connection.

The first thing that struck me about the 2.5's sound was the bass. Most people like a lot of bass; as I do home theater audio calibrations, I find it necessary to boost the bass beyond a few decibels (which helps to account for room gain) to satisfy most of my customer's taste. Bass is often heavily boosted in car audio systems as well, both to compensate for engine and road noise and to give the tonal balance most listeners prefer. In fact, the first impression I got of the 2.5's bass was that it was balanced like my car audio system, when the car is turned off: lotsa, lotsa bass! The bass had a nice quality; while heavy, it was not exactly slow and plodding as may be expected. Actual bottom octave, air moving bass was there, but the majority of boost sounded like it was in the range most people consider low bass but is actually closer to mid bass.

There was an excellent and stable center image, and the soundstage was surprisingly extremely wide. The overall soundstage seemed less deep than wide, though that could be due to the somewhat close placement to the rear wall. I felt the imaging was very precise. However, I was initially bothered by a slight hardness and sharpness to the upper mids.

Because of the 2.5's vertical line array, listening height doesn't change much as long as your ear is within the height of the array. But the line array height is below ear height when standing, even for someone on the short side; therefore, the sound is very hollow when standing up. I found the lateral axis to also be fairly critical; with the speakers toed in straight at the listening position, the upper mids had a sharp, hard quality. However, reducing the toe-in so that the back of the sub cabinet is slightly visible on the midbass side gave a better balance. In fact, after I lessened the toe in, I was rewarded with much smoother upper mids and low treble.

With the toe in tweaked, I settled in with more familiar program material. The smoother tonal balance encouraged me to keep inching up the volume, and the 2.5's effortless dynamics was putting a big smile on my face. Yes, the bass was too heavy, but it had that live rock concert feel. The upper range was very clean at extremely high volume. Again I was treated to a wide, precise soundstage, though depth was a bit on the shallow side. The top end sounded very realistic, with great upper octave extension. There was a natural sparkle to go along with the delicate (in a good way) sounding highs. Occasionally, I heard sounds coming from way beyond the physical spread of the speakers. Listening to a wide variety of music including rock, country, smooth jazz, and more, I got tastes of that pant-flapping bass that normally only comes with the most powerful subwoofers. Moreover, these speakers produced a very cohesive, seamless sound that I found seductive.

Pulling out my trusty analog Radio Shack SPL meter with Family Force Five's "Ghostride the Whip" rocking through the speakers, I was amazed to find clean 121 dB C-weighted peaks; and if I didn't mind a bit of fuzziness in the bass, peaks of over 124 dB came through at the listening position. That was the loudest I've ever heard or measured in a home stereo system. While it's common for high powered aftermarket car stereos to hit or exceed such levels with the help of huge cabin gain, it's almost unheard of in home systems. This system had an exceptional ability to recreate the volume and power of a live rock concert.
Though I did not experiment with either of these two options, there are a couple of ideas that came to mind to help control the bass balance. One would be to plug one or both of the dual rear bass reflex ports with acoustical foam. While this would reduce the output capability in the midbass, it would reduce the bloat and add a bit more bottom octave extension. The second would be to utilize a bass equalizer. However, if you like a little extra bass in your music, you'll be in audiophile heaven with the 2.5's sound unmodified.

Cons:
sounds very hollow when standing up
heavy bass
soundstage a bit shallow in this setup

Measurements:

The first 2 attachments use the PsychoAcoustic response, which greatly reduces the effect of the listening room's acoustics. The response appears more uneven than expected due to a line array being measured at a close measurement distance; therefore, these are meant to show just the differences, not the actual balance. They are intended to show the change in balance moving up and down and side to side.

The last attachment is a 10 reading spatially averaged response of both left and right speakers centered at the listening position, spanning a window a few feet wide, a couple feet deep, and about a foot high. It shows the room response of the speakers; in other words, how it sounded in this room.

Wow solid review Chad. The 2.2's have caught my eye but I always wondered what the behemoth 2.5s sounded like. My only question is why would they power such a speaker with an Emotiva amp? I would think they'd be much better served with higher quality amplification, seems like a huge mismatch to me.

Not familiar with Red Dragon at all so I cannot comment. What are your thoughts?

I own the 2.6f which is between the 2.2 and 2.5 (more like a smaller 2.3bf), the better the ancillary equipment the better they sound. Swan actually demoes the 2.3bf's at CES with an Onkyo receiver! I use Wyred4Sound amplification and Dac, with Nordost Tyr cable and
Isoclean power conditioning. My room and overall living quarters are too small for these pint size wonders, they still sound killer in my setup. I live in a loft in Atl and have had several complaints because sound is bleeding through the walls even at lower volumes. I can't wait to get larger living quarters or I may have to sell them (ugh!). I heard the original Red Dragon amps at a highend show and they were killer! If you have the chance to listen to these babies, I believe they are the best kept secret in the line! I was caught between the F5F and these and am very happy I chose the 2.6F. From 2.6F up the speakers need breathing room. Great dynamics, tone, staging, etc.

Wow solid review Chad. The 2.2's have caught my eye but I always wondered what the behemoth 2.5s sounded like. My only question is why would they power such a speaker with an Emotiva amp? I would think they'd be much better served with higher quality amplification, seems like a huge mismatch to me.

Not familiar with Red Dragon at all so I cannot comment. What are your thoughts?

Thanks!

I guess it is a bit of a mismatch in price, but the Emotiva is well built with audiophile quality parts. Plus, it's 500 WPC rating at 8 ohms let me test Swan's power handling claim... And yes, it passed!

I had swan m200mkiii but after a month the left speaker would cut out and I would have to turn it off and back on to get it to work. Now I can barely get the left to work. Has anyone else would m200mkiii have any problems. They sound amazing but only having one speaker work sucks.

I had swan m200mkiii but after a month the left speaker would cut out and I would have to turn it off and back on to get it to work. Now I can barely get the left to work. Has anyone else would m200mkiii have any problems. They sound amazing but only having one speaker work sucks.

Cons:
sounds very hollow when standing up
heavy bass
soundstage a bit shallow in this setup

The last attachment is a 10 reading spatially averaged response of both left and right speakers centered at the listening position, spanning a window a few feet wide, a couple feet deep, and about a foot high. It shows the room response of the speakers; in other words, how it sounded in this room.

.

The heavy bass sound is due to room resonance at 40 and 60Hz it looks like from attachment 3. A DEQ2496 will fix this real well.